Conflict of Conscience vs Scripture

Tom 1 · Feb 15, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
Not sure what you mean by that. I'ld love to explain (I honestly think it's a very interesting point of discussion), but as I say, not sure what you mean with "different layers of meaning and evidence".

My starting point is that it is unwise to assume things without justifiable reason.
In other words, I'll accept that X has "special meaning", when it can be demonstrated / rationally supported to be the case.

In this case it would be the study of the period, of ways of thinking and behaving that were common between e.g the Sumerian culture that Abraham came out of and what then became the Hebrew nation, and what were the differences. Cultural and ideological differences didn’t change overnight but the meaning is in the fundamental and radical distinctions that developed between Israel and surrounding nations, over a long period of time, what those were and what do they mean. But it’s a lot to try and go into in a post.

DogmaHunter · Feb 15, 2018

Radagast said:
Accepting the claim would make you a theist.

Denying the claim (accepting the negation of the claim) would make you an atheist.

The whole purpose of the analogy is to show that not accepting claim X is not the same as accepting the opposite of claim X.

Apparantly, it went straight over your head.
Not sure how I could explain it any clearer though.

Not accepting either the claim or its negation would make you an agnostic.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

Agnosticism, is not some third alternative between atheism and theism.
(A)gnosticism pertains to knowledge and (a)theism pertains to belief. Theistic beliefs, specifically.

They are different answers to different questions.

Strathos · Feb 15, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
The whole purpose of the analogy is to show that not accepting claim X is not the same as accepting the opposite of claim X.

Apparantly, it went straight over your head.
Not sure how I could explain it any clearer though.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

Agnosticism, is not some third alternative between atheism and theism.
(A)gnosticism pertains to knowledge and (a)theism pertains to belief. Theistic beliefs, specifically.

They are different answers to different questions.

So then you would be saying that you don't know that the coin landed on tails, but you irrationally believe that it did.

Rivga · Feb 15, 2018

Strathos said:
So then you would be saying that you don't know that the coin landed on tails, but you irrationally believe that it did.

You are assuming that there is a 50:50 relationship, it is more like the coin has landed on its edge. In the coin analogy I'd say that I don't know but I am not going to live my life assuming the coin has landed in its edge.

DogmaHunter · Feb 16, 2018

Strathos said:
So then you would be saying that you don't know that the coin landed on tails, but you irrationally believe that it did.

Huh?

No....

Concerning the coin toss, you can make 2 claims:
- it is heads
- it is tails

I just accept neither of them, because I have not enough information to commit to either claim.

It's an example of a situation where you can have only 2 outcomes: it's either tails or heads. Just like god either exists or he doesn't.

Concerning god, you can make 2 claims:
- god exists
- god does not exist

Theism and atheism, are both positions concerning the first claim.
The claim under discussion is "god exists".

I don't accept that claim. That makes me an atheist.
Someone who does accept that claim, is a theist.
The second claim, is not being addressed here.

It's not difficult.

Strathos · Feb 16, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
Huh?

No....

Concerning the coin toss, you can make 2 claims:
- it is heads
- it is tails

I just accept neither of them, because I have not enough information to commit to either claim.

It's an example of a situation where you can have only 2 outcomes: it's either tails or heads. Just like god either exists or he doesn't.

Concerning god, you can make 2 claims:
- god exists
- god does not exist

Theism and atheism, are both positions concerning the first claim.
The claim under discussion is "god exists".

I don't accept that claim. That makes me an atheist.
Someone who does accept that claim, is a theist.
The second claim, is not being addressed here.

It's not difficult.

You distinguished between knowledge and belief. You don't know there is no God but believe there isn't one.

Norbert L · Feb 16, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
That's where the root of your misunderstanding is.
I don't have a need to "bridge gaps", because there are no such gaps to be bridged.

Consider this: you don't believe santa claus is real.
Hitler didn't believe santa claus is real.

Do you feel like you need to "distance yourself" from nazism, because both you and Hitler share a disbelief in the existance of santa claus?

Off course you do not....
So why would I feel a need to "distance myself" from Stalin, because both of us share a disbelief in the existance of a theistic deity?

I don't. A communist who thinks the soviets were evil, might feel a need to distance himself.

Sure. But it would also be more accurate and meaningfull to say that they were run by radical communists...

As in, I am an atheist but not a communist.
Communism isn't inherent to atheism.

That would be marxism / radical communism.
That's their actual worldview.

As I have already explained, atheism is not a worldview. It is rather a word that expresses the explicit rejection of one particular worldview (theism).

Because they are communists and I am not a communist.
Our collective atheism is completely irrelevant to that fact.

Nothing in atheism dictates how one should view abortion either.
Because, once more, atheism ONLY expressed the disbelief of one very specific thing: theism. It doesn't assert anything. It doesn't impose doctrines. It doesn't impose anything at all. It's, in fact, as empty a label as it gets, as it only tells you what a person does NOT believe.

I wonder how many times it must be repeated?

Obviously.
I'm sure there are also measureable difference among people who don't play football as well.

Except when it comes to the doctrines and dogma's that are inherently part of theism, off course.

When someone tells me that they are a christian, then there's a whole list of assumptions that I can make about that person concerning the beliefs that they will hold.

While when someone tells me they are atheist, the only real thing I know about him/her then, is what they do NOT believe.

When a statement is made that atheists don't need to bridge the gap between themselves and the horrific social consequences of communism in the historical past because they share atheism. Then spend the majority of their time pointing that out they are not communist repeatedly. Two things come to my mind. A quote paraphrased from Shakespeare, "thou doth protest too much" and having a legitimate condemnation of the societal behaviors, Laws, justice systems of those events in the past.

You see although it would be harder to prove that it was atheism that led to such an horrific outcome in historical world events, it is rather obvious that atheism was impotent and incapable of stopping that from happening in the first place. It's much like the bridges between what is clearly in the the historical context scriptures and the conscience of modern day theists. You see, we, the you and I share similar beliefs, to paraphrase you, 'As in, I am an theist but not a polytheist. Polytheism isn't inherent to theism.'

DogmaHunter · Feb 16, 2018

Strathos said:
You distinguished between knowledge and belief. You don't know there is no God but believe there isn't one.

No. I don't know to what lengths I need to go before one will understand that not believing claim X, is NOT THE SAME as positively believing "not X"....

So the statement "you don't know there is no god but believe there isn't one" isn't at all an accurate description of my atheism.

The accurate description is: "You don't know if there is a god and you don't believe/accept the claim that there is one"

Again, like I said, 2 claims are possible:
- god exists
- god DOES NOT exist

In the theism/atheism discussion, it is the first claim ("god exists") that is being addressed - NOT the second.

My atheism is defined by answering "no" to the question "do you believe that a god exists?".

Again, it's not difficult. I don't get why people have such a hard time understanding this.

DogmaHunter · Feb 16, 2018

Norbert L said:
When a statement is made that atheists don't need to bridge the gap between themselves and the horrific social consequences of communism in the historical past because they share atheism. Then spend the majority of their time pointing that out they are not communist repeatedly.

The only reason I need to keep repeating that I'm not a communist is because certain people keep on insinuating there somehow is an inherent connction between atheism and communism.

There isn't. So I can only keep addressing that accusation by pointing out that there isn't. What would you have me do otherwise?

I keep on explaining how there's nothing in atheism that leads to communism, and you people keep on coming back implying the opposite.

So I can only keep on repeating myself.
That's not on me. That's on you, not listening and continueing repeating the same mistakes.

Two things come to my mind. A quote paraphrased from Shakespeare, "thou doth protest too much" and having a legitimate condemnation of the societal behaviors, Laws, justice systems of those events in the past.

"thou keep on accusing even after having been explained how thou areth incorrect", sounds more like it.

You keep on drawing faulty connections between atheism and communism, and I will just keep on explaining how that is incorrect.

Again, what do you want me to do?
Should I just leave your faulty accusations up there, unchallenged?
What good will that do?

You see although it would be harder to prove that it was atheism that led to such an horrific outcome in historical world events, it is rather obvious that atheism was impotent and incapable of stopping that from happening in the first place.

Why would you expect otherwise?
Did I claim otherwise?

Au contraire... I've repeatedly explained how atheism is NOT a set of doctrines, dogma's, rules, views, what-have-you. Atheism is NOT a worldview. It is just a word that tells you what specific worldview is NOT followed.

As I said: it's as empty a label as it gets. It doesn't tell you anything.

Consider having a word for people who don't play football.
All it would tell you is that they don't play football. It wouldn't tell you what sport they DO play.

It's much like the bridges between what is clearly in the the historical context scriptures and the conscience of modern day theists. You see, we, the you and I share similar beliefs, to paraphrase you, 'As in, I am an theist but not a polytheist. Polytheism isn't inherent to theism.'

I didn't claim polytheism is inherent to theism. It's a type of theism. The "poly" type. I don't see how this is relevant.

Norbert L · Feb 18, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
The only reason I need to keep repeating that I'm not a communist is because certain people keep on insinuating there somehow is an inherent connction between atheism and communism.

There isn't.

The only connection anyone needs to look at is being an Atheist also does not cure humanity of all its' evils. It's just as dirty as theism.

durangodawood · Feb 19, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
No. I don't know to what lengths I need to go before one will understand that not believing claim X, is NOT THE SAME as positively believing "not X"........

I dont know why this is so difficult for some people.

DogmaHunter · Feb 20, 2018

Norbert L said:
The only connection anyone needs to look at is being an Atheist also does not cure humanity of all its' evils. It's just as dirty as theism.

Neither does wearing a mustache.

The difference is that atheism doesn't claim to be "the answer" to the world's evils. Unlike theism.

Soyeong · Feb 20, 2018

Rivga said:
A question for Theists, given the Scriptures of most of the major religions are old and given that morality* has moved on since most of the scriptures were wrote.

How do you bridge the gap between what is clearly in the your scriptures and your Conscience?

For example Homosexuality - whilst I realise a lot of Theists still disagree with this and there is no conflict between Scripture and Conscience for them, but for many Theists in the west there is clearly a conflict (see Ireland historic vote).
Or another easy example is Slavery, which is significantly less divisive than homosexuality, now but it was not at a certain point.

*this is an assertion, but one based on evidence of the change in societal behaviours, Laws, justice systems, you get the picture.

If we don't see how something is wrong, then it becomes a matter of whether we are going to have faith that God knew what He was talking about.

apogee · Feb 20, 2018

I think that’s a really interesting OP.

Hmmm..conflict between conscience and scripture. It’s clearly scripture because my CONSCIENCE, would allow me to say nothing else.

Erm...I’m confused

apogee · Feb 20, 2018

Although I don’t really know what scripture actually is or how to apply it to the minutia of life in a way that is logically consistent with my limited comprehension of the historical, literary context, within which it was first written, the precise issues it spoke to at the time, and how that translates to my current context in such a way as to inform and direct my every opinion and decision, to the point that my judgement becomes elevated to a God like level of correctness. However I’m just gonna say scripture, (by which of course I mean the general consensus of evangelical Christians or else my own personal conviction on what it is saying)

Noxot · Feb 25, 2018

Rivga said:
A question for Theists, given the Scriptures of most of the major religions are old and given that morality* has moved on since most of the scriptures were wrote.

How do you bridge the gap between what is clearly in the your scriptures and your Conscience?

For example Homosexuality - whilst I realise a lot of Theists still disagree with this and there is no conflict between Scripture and Conscience for them, but for many Theists in the west there is clearly a conflict (see Ireland historic vote).
Or another easy example is Slavery, which is significantly less divisive than homosexuality, now but it was not at a certain point.

*this is an assertion, but one based on evidence of the change in societal behaviours, Laws, justice systems, you get the picture.

for the most irrational parts of the scriptures I try to find it's deeper meaning and reject the outermost meaning, since there has always been a tradition in how the bible is to be read and learned and there is also the understanding that everything is a test. so I know that I am not to blindly conform to rules but to become what I am as I recall that God said "I set before you life and death". this becoming involves more than mere authoritarian submission to words in a book.

as for homosexuality, I have a disgust for the act for my own reasons and some of it is probably due to some survival strategy concerning prevention of damage or disease. since I have modern knowledge and I can decide for myself due to my communion with God what are the most important parts of the laws and what were those lesser elements, I find it easy to glean the goods from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and to reject the evil ones.

my relationship with God surmounts morality since the whole point of morality for me is God, so I am not that bothered with things such as homosexuality even though I don't prefer them.

as for slavery, i'm against it but we humans have not found a way to fully escape from it yet due to our creature nature and the need for constant toil and sacrifice and the threats of death if you fail to obtain food or shelter and to keep your health.

FredVB · Mar 7, 2023

There are deeper meanings scriptures of the Bible point to, where there really is godliness that goes beyond our conscience, which is not good enough itself. Things seeming to be supporting slavery, or violence, or polygamy, were dealing with people where they were at the time, just as those for sacrificing did, they pointed to some things further that were really godliness yet to come to. People, even believers now, are not just ready to go to the godliness of God's perfect will shown as the design, which includes us in this world as it was made, written in Genesis 1 with passages by it showing further description.

zippy2006 · Mar 25, 2023

durangodawood said:
I dont know why this is so difficult for some people.

Agnostics who want to call themselves atheists for dramatic effect while rejecting the logical consequences are being difficult, true. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

zippy2006 · Mar 25, 2023

Rivga said:
Or another easy example is Slavery...

Generally speaking I think there can be a conflict of conscience here, but your OP is too vague. I think you need to provide the verse and argue what you think it is saying. So for example:

Rivga said:
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." (Exodus 21:2)

I think we would both agree that this is a fairly limited form of slavery, no? The traditional Christian response to the question of Biblical slavery is to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable forms of slavery.

durangodawood · Mar 26, 2023

zippy2006 said:
Agnostics who want to call themselves atheists for dramatic effect while rejecting the logical consequences are being difficult, true. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

I see it the other way round: polemicist believers trying to bend their opponents position ("I dont believe in gods") into something unreasonable ("I know theres no gods").

Conflict of Conscience vs Scripture

Optimistic sceptic

Code Monkey

No one important

Active Member

Code Monkey

No one important

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

re Member

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

anarchist personalist

Regular Member

Dragonsworn

Dragonsworn

re Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency